Assignments to Non MERS Members Further Cloud Title

Your case should first be summarized by your securitization expert who relies upon the expert opinions of others as to underwriting, appraisal, mortgage brokers etc. Then those other experts come in. After that, the forensic analyst and homeowner come in to fill in the facts upon which the experts relied.

But you build your case in reverse of the order of presentation, starting with the homeowner, then the forensic analyst, then the sub-experts, and finally the securitization expert.

From: Tony Brown

Editor’s Note: I have not bothered to edit the following comment because for those of you who are attending the forensic workshop I wanted you to see how information is often presented. Here is clear evidence of (a) why a forensic analyst is essential and (b) why you need a method of presentation that gives the Judge a clear picture of the true nature of a securitized transaction.

The other lesson to be gleaned is that forensic analysts should stick to facts and expert witnesses should stick to opinions. Lawyers should stick to argument. Any overlap will result in a brutal cross examination that will, quite rightfully, draw blood.

I’m planning a workshop whose working name is Motion Practice and Discovery for late in May. You see there is method to our madness here notwithstanding our critics.

Your case should first be summarized by your securitization expert who relies upon the expert opinions of others as to underwriting, appraisal, mortgage brokers etc. Then those other experts come in. After that, the forensic analyst and homeowner come in to fill in the facts upon which the experts relied.

But you build your case in reverse of the order of presentation, starting with the homeowner, then the forensic analyst, then the sub-experts, and finally the securitization expert.

Mers was named nominee on the mortgage and filed at the Register Of Deeds in Greenville SC, supposedly according to a lost note affidavit the original lender RBMG sold the note and according to MERS servicer ID the loan was transferred off of the MERS system and MIN# deactivated because of a sale to a non-mers member in 2002. NO ASSIGNMENT WAS RECORDED.Now the new owner EMC sold the loan to Bear Stearns which deposited into the Asset Backed Securities which did an assignment/sell to JP MORGAN CHASE as trustee. Now there has been a foreclosure started on the loan in March 2009 by The Bank OF New York Mellon as successor trustee for JP MORGAN CHASE who claims to be the real party in interest and hold the note. By way Of an assignment which was recorded at the ROD after the LIS-PENDENS and after the filing of complaint.Here is more fraud because the assignment was from MERS on behalf of the original lender RBMG which is defunct and has been since 2005 to the THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON. MERS has no authority to do an assignment because the loan was transferred from them in 2002 and Mers was Longer the mortgagee as nominee of record.Now are you with me( no chain of title) the BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON produced in discovery to me an allonge RBMG to EMC along with the lost note affidavit. EMC showed an allonge to JP MORGAN CHASE which skipped BEAR STEARNS. BEAR STEARNS was the depositor into the securities. First let start with the allonges: according to the UCC an allonge is only used when there is NO ROOM ON THE ORIGINAL NOTE FOR ENDORSEMENT and must be firmly attached as to become a part of the note. AN ALLONGE cannot be used to transfer interest and is invalid if there is room on the note for endorsements and is invalid it not attached. A lost note and two allonges that were not signed and not dated and even skipped BEAR STEARNS that deposited it into the securities is the purported chain of title , now let’s look at the prospectus:Bear Stearns Asset Backed Securities Inc · 424B5 · Bear Stearns Asset Backed Certificates Series 2003-2 · On 6/30/03 Document 1 of 1 · 424B5 · Prospectus . Assignment of the Mortgage Loans; Repurchase At the time of issuance of the certificates, the depositor will cause the mortgage loans, together with all principal and interest due with respect to such mortgage loans after the cut-off date to be sold to the trust. The mortgage loans in each of the mortgage loan groups will be identified in a schedule appearing as an exhibit to the pooling and servicing agreement with each mortgage loan group separately identified. Such schedule will include information as to the principal balance of each mortgage loan as of the cut-off date, as well as information including, among other things, the mortgage rate,the borrower’s monthly payment and the maturity date of each mortgage note. In addition, the depositor will deposit with Wells Fargo Bank Minnesota, National Association, as custodian and agent for the trustee, the following documents with respect to each mortgage loan: (a) except with respect to a MOM loan, the original mortgage note, endorsed without recourse in the following form: “Pay to the order of JPMorgan Chase Bank, as S-40——————————————————————————– trustee for certificate-holders of Bear Stearns Asset Backed Securities, Inc., Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2003-2 without recourse,” with all intervening endorsements, to the extent available, showing a complete chain of endorsement from the originator to the seller or, if the original mortgage note is unavailable to the depositor, a photocopy thereof, if available, together with a lost note affidavit; (b) the original recorded mortgage or a photocopy thereof, and if the related mortgage loan is a MOM loan, noting the applicable mortgage identification number for that mortgage loan; (c) except with respect to a mortgage loan that is registered on the MERS(R) System, a duly executed assignment of the mortgage to “JPMorgan Chase Bank, as trustee for certificate-holders of Bear Stearns Asset Backed Securities, Inc., Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2003-2, without recourse;” in recordable form, as described in the pooling and servicing agreement; (d) originals or duplicates of all interim recorded assignments of such mortgage, if any and if available to the depositor; (e) the original or duplicate original lender’s title policy or, in the event such original title policy has not been received from the insurer, such original or duplicate original lender’s title policy shall be delivered within one year of the closing date or, in the event such original lender’s title policy is unavailable, a photocopy of such title policy or, in lieu thereof, a current lien search on the related property; and (f) the original or a copy of all available assumption, modification or substitution agreements, if any. In general, assignments of the mortgage loans provided to the custodian on behalf of the trustee will not be recorded in the appropriate public office for real property records, based upon an opinion of counsel to the effect that such recording is not required to protect the trustee’s interests in the mortgage loan against the claim of any subsequent transferee or any successor to or creditor of the depositor or the seller, or as to which the rating agencies advise that the omission to record therein will not affect their ratings of the offered certificates. In connection with the assignment of any mortgage loan that is registered on the MERS(R) System, the depositor will cause the MERS(R) System to indicate that those mortgage loans have been assigned by EMC to the depositor and by the depositor to the trustee by including (or deleting, in the case of repurchased mortgage loans) in the computer files (a) the code in the field which identifies the trustee and (b) the code in the field “Pool Field” which identifies the series of certificates issued. Neither the depositor nor the master servicer will alter these codes (except in the case of a repurchased mortgage loan). A “MOM loan” is any mortgage loan as to which, at origination, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. acts as mortgagee, solely as nominee for the originator of that mortgage loan and its successors and assigns. S-41——————————————————————————– The custodian on behalf of the trustee will perform a limited review of the mortgage loan documents on or prior to the closing date or in the case of any document permitted to be delivered after the closing date, promptly after the custodian’s receipt of such documents and will hold such documents in trust for the benefit of the holders of the certificates. In addition, the seller will make representations and warranties in the pooling and servicing agreement as of the cut-off date in respect of the mortgage loans. The depositor will file the pooling and servicing agreement containing such representations and warranties with the Securities and Exchange Commission in a report on Form 8-K following the closing date. After the closing date, if any document is found to be missing or defective in any material respect, or if a representation or warranty with respect to any mortgage loan is breached and such breach materially and adversely affects the interests of the holders of the certificates in such mortgage loan, the custodian, on behalf of the trustee, is required to notify the seller in writing. If the seller cannot or does not cure such omission,defect or breach within 90 days of its receipt of notice from the custodian, the seller is required to repurchase the related mortgage loan from the trust fund at a price equal to 100% of the stated principal balance thereof as of the date of repurchase plus accrued and unpaid interest thereon at the mortgage rate to the first day of the month following the month of repurchase. In addition, if the obligation to repurchase the related mortgage loan results from a breach of the seller’s representations regarding predatory lending, the seller will be obligated to pay any resulting costs and damages incurred by the trust. Rather than repurchase the mortgage loan as provided above, the seller may remove such mortgage loan from the trust fund and substitute in its place another mortgage loan of like characteristics; however, such substitution is only permitted within two years after the closing date. With respect to any repurchase or substitution of a mortgage loan that is not in default or as to which a default is not imminent, the trustee must have received a satisfactory opinion of counsel that such repurchase or substitution will not cause the trust fund to lose the status of its REMIC.

I’m not a MOM loan the loan transferred off of MERS, Mers no longer tracked the assignments and let’s not forget I HAVE IN MY POSSESSION THE ORIGINAL NOTE STAMPED FULLY PAID AND SATISFIED NEGOTIATED TO ME FROM RBMG. The note is date stamped MARCH 2002 and has been in my possession since 2004 along with a letter from the RBMG stating the loan is fully paid and satisfied address to me which is the declaratory letter.

About these ads

12 Responses

  1. I really do not understand your position. While I am in bankrupcy chapter 7 there seems to be a direct relationship with the banks. What can I do when the attorneys remove themselves? It seems to me, the attorneys are part of the equation. There is stalking and harrassment tactics taking place with the police department ,fire department and a host of mant others that are government positions. The mers assignment was made after bankrupct began. Tell me this, the notary is ver bogus due to the fact the actual assignment itself is not notarized. It appears the notarized did not notarized the document mention itself. What should I do? I sent a compliant to the attorney gem eras office,with this complaint a bogus response of one HSC
    Courts a turner whom appears to be a 13 year old at best according to the photo. Much research I have found this person does not exist as we’ll as one forest nenninger app do Bank of America. This is all fraudulent information and poorly written letter responding from the attorney generals office. This is Lear these are individuals from or part of ba fraternity in Columbia Missouri. What a shame. , if sent this complaint from the attorney generals office directly. Som the question becomes how did this compliant get into the hands of the pretender lender? The problem stems from the very same issue that I have styled from the very beginning of this Claim. The employer! Th problem is listed on the site which shows clearly the sister of the employer is n the website of the presiding US Trustee of the Midwest region. She is listed two was Husch and Blackwell assistant,and Wellsfargo. What the hell is going on here”?’

  2. Well you shoud come to stlouis and give lessons to the Judges who are making out like fat cats. They all know the law , they only pretend bacuase the certificate holders are in fact the same people that are making decisions.
    The Roberts Brothers are holding many certificates behind these loans in St.Louis. Now here comes bank Of america to sue them. Right ? Really?
    The investors are the Real Estate Companies , entertainers in and out of St.Louis . We know who they are ! Yes they are thugs indeed!
    Now they push you into bankrupcy. Not knowing the extend of the fraud until you get there. The attorneys you are paying , also representing and associated with the home. They have used MERS to create a fraudulent assignment, creating a fake Remic to transfer the property into, collect your money with draining you financially, put every Government agency on you, hoping you’ll have a nervous breakdown, place pretender advocaty groups in your path, and at the end of the day……. you will find the State … State is behind all of this madness. They will block you with the Law whenever they can. The Judges are afliated with the Certificate holders that go into Bankrupcy,
    as is the Trustee’s , as is the Attorneys you are paying, as is the Mayor.
    It was all planned. Armstrong and Teasdale are presiding over these failed Trust .

    ************someone take the time to investigate this madness

  3. Hello Dave ,

    I am not certain if you are responding to my question. I will state for the record, the home loan was taken with First Horizon home loans in 2002, it aopears the loans were deficient to satisfy the remic. These loans were 100% taxable. I noticed in 2004 , my employer fired me without any good reason after working for the family over 10 years. i noticed the relationshio with the Roberts Brothers whom are currently in Bankrucpy. It appears my home was tapped , phone lines were definelty tapped. The neighbor which happens to be a friend and associates of the Roberts Brothers put a hole in the roof. Consistantly placing finanical issues upon me. Following and harrassment from the Roberts family and associates. I have learned the reason is they are certificate holders. http://www.blacktie-missouri.com/photos/photodetail.cfm?id=37944. These are the individuals and their assosciates seem to follow in a daily basis. From everything I have gathered it appears Charlie Dooley is working with JP Morgan, Bank of New York and clearly the special assistant to Slays office and Charlie Dooley seems to be assuming loans under family members names. The Bankrupcy Judge appears to be connected with the Foreclosure Mill – Millsap and Singer. The Bankrupcy for the Roberts Brothers appear to be a sham if ever I saw one. They are holding certificates on homes over 250,000.000. The endorser of the alleged note presented to the Bankrupcy court – was Cliff cotton representing MetLife , Ed Fisher -representing First Horizon . These are all made up. All signatures were stamped , No dates on the endorsement. Claiming to have only one endorsement.
    The Roberts Brothers RealEstate is handled by Virvus Jones whos daughter just won the treasures position in the City., Let see how this all fits in together. Virvus Jones connected to Charlie Dooley , Charlie Dooley is connected with the unemployment division. They made certain I was terminated from my employment. The employment division run and operated by Charlie Dooley, Wells fargo ex employees,
    Real estate employees. I am placed on a no hire list for certain. I filed a TRO , with the Civil courts. The Judge informed me he could not do anything of the order by the Federal Judge. I said ok , left his office however, he placed a call and next thing I know there is a notice on the mail stating he informed the parties of the court date , when I called the court to find out what was going on I was informed by his secretary that the Judge served the party Millsap and Singer , the court date was the very mnext day. The Judge took it among himself to make the court date a coference. I would have Never ! requested this , Only an open court Jury Trail. They got me into this conference and the Judge with viewing the original deed agreed with Millsap and Singer. Refused to lift the motion. Asked the qiestion if they were in possession of the original note and deed ? If they provided these documents in the Federal Courts.? The attorney stated yes. I informed the Judge no they dod not have the documents for the courts or for me to review. I showed the original Deed to the Judge , the attorneys face dropped however, the Judge went along with the foreclosing party., This was set up , staged by the Judge and the Attorney, As I left the court , I overheard the attorneys laugh and state some things that were in- appropraite. The implication was simpy they all were acting together, These are all lies. The County assessors office is mimiking the fraud of the foreclosure Mills , trading bonds , stealing homes , tracing securities behind MERS. Charlie Dooley is stating to send his office any documents showing reflecting fraud. It is his office committing the fraud. They have now networked with the Treasures offices , attorneys in stlouis , they are using fake death certificates – affridavits to aid in their fraud. You will never have any justice in St.Louis the political arena is full of fraud. The Bankrucpy attorneys are all networked. My Bankrupcy was orchestrated by this group of people. They would have a serious fraud suit against them with a good attorney unfortunatley I do not know of any in stlouis. I have had to hide my documents out of state due to the break ins. It seems the Notarizer of the original documents was with Pulaski Bank. Steve Roberts ( Member of the Board ) just resigned.
    The popurted original owner of the home is the cousin of Previous state Rep. Kit Bond. AP Geen, Brick Company.
    Guestrooms and Suites at the A.P. Green House | Bed and …

    apgreenhousebedandbreakfast.com/rooms.html

    Their eleventh grandchild of thirteen, Christopher Samuel (Kit) Bond, son of Elizabeth Green, their oldest daughter, and Arthur Doerr Bond served many years as one of …

    The original agents to review Loans backed by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mea was Clayton Holdings.
    Clayton holding are now acting with the foreclosure Mills , attorneys etc. Clayton holdings are now partnered with the Santander Group , CSI, HSBC, Clayton lenders solution. LPS, Core Logic , and many other compnaies they have now merged with.
    The endorsers of the note once again was Cliff Cotton – Clayton Lender Solutions or another alias Cliff Cotton Buyer … Drive Financial Services LP … Accelerate your business with the industry’s …( This is the Santander Group)
    Ed fisher Edward Fisher
    Investment Director at Amro Real Ed Fisher
    Managing Partner at SouthPointe Ventures Greater Atlanta Area | Venture Capital & Private Equity Estate Partners London, United Kingdom | Real Estate or alias

    Tell me what can u do?

  4. Dave ,
    What is MERS made certain all documents consisting of there name is gone without a trace. But, look at this the transferring documents are all Robo Signers. Crstal Moore , Brian Bly, Mike Fisher , Jerry wade lollar ( wrong commision date ) Ed fisher and Cliff Cotton.
    Ed Fisher – Southpoint ventures signs as Forst Horizon home loans , Cliff Cotton – Santander ” Clayton holdings, inc , Claython lenders solutions. Lets just say you physically possess the original deed of trust. However, you are in federal bankrucpy courts and the judge denies any motion that you have, What should you do?

  5. A QUESTION TO ANYINE OUT THERE WITH EXPERINCE CONCERNING ST.LOUIS , MO
    FIRST HORIZON HOME LOANS CREATED THE LOAN IN 2002, TRANSFERRED SUPPOSEDLY IN 2009 TO METLIFE.
    IN EARLY 2002, THE FORECLOSING PARTY MILLSAP AND SINGER PLACED A FAKE DEATH CERTIFICATE IN THE FILE AT THE COUTNY ASSESSORS OFFICE ALONG WITH A FAKE DEED OF TRUST WHICH IS THE NAME OF THE COUNTY TREASURERS OFFICE JULIE LEICHT – SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO MAYOR SLAY AND CHARLIE DOOLEY. THIS COULD ALSO BE ANOTHER PARTY WITHIN THE SAME FAMILY WHICH IS FRED LEICHT -UNEMPLOYMENT ATTORNEY IN ILLINIOS ( TEASDALE AND ARMSTRONG) I HAVE FOUND AN OVERWHELMING AMOUNT OF LOAN CASES OF THE LEICHT FAMILY ASSUMING THE LOANS UNDER FORECLOSURE AND TAXES. THEY ARE EITHER ASSUMING THE LOANS AND OR PURHASING FOR PENNIES N THE DOLLAR.
    NOTE ON THE LOAN DOCUMENTS IT DOES NOT SHOW THE POOL. THE DATE IS OCTOBER 18,2002. FROM MY UNDERSTANDING THESE WERE LOANS THAT VERY WELL PAID THE INVESTORS.
    HERE THE PROBLEM, MILLSAP AND SINGER HAD GONE TO THE STLOUIS FEDERAL BANKRUPCY COURTS AND INFORMED THE JUDGE THEY HAVE THE NOTE AND DEED OF TRUST AFFIXED AND ATTACHED WITH THE SIGNATURE OF TWO INDIVIDUALS OF THE NAME ED FISHER AND CLIFF COTTON.
    IN 2009, THE FORECLOSING DOCUMENTS STATED THE BENEFICAIRY WAS MERS.
    SINCE THIS FORECLOSURE DID NOT TAKE PLACE THE , UNKNOWN TO MYSELF AT THE TIME MY EMPLOYER HAD EVERYTHING TO DO WITH THE FORECLOSURE, MY HOME HAS BEEM BROKEN INTO , WIRED FOR SOUND AND CONSISTANTLY HARRASSED BY THE COMMUNITY. IT APPEARS THEY HAVE DEPLOYED GERMAN STYLE HARRASSMENT TACTICS. MY EMPLYER I FOUND OUT WORKS WITH THE BANKRUPCY ATTORNEYS , UNE,PLOYMENT OFFICE , AND ARE DEBT COLLECTORS UNDER A DISUISE OF SOMETHING TOTALLY DIFFERENT. MY EMPLYER REDUCED MY SALARY , THEN TRIES O GET ME TO TAKE ANOTHER REDUCTION IN SALARY. KNOWING THAT MY DEBT RATIO WOULD BE MUCH HIGHER. WHEN I REFUSED , I WAS TERMINATED. THERE IS A NETWORK OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY IN STLOUIS OF BLACKLISTING HOMEOWNERS THEREFORE THEY WOULD HAVE TO GO INTO BANKRUPCY. YOUR HOME LINES , CELL PHONES ARE INTERCEPTED. I CALLED A ATTORNEY BY THE NAME OF THOMPSON IN GEORGIA. HERE IS WHAT BECAME VERY CLEAR TO ME . HIS VOICE WENT FROM AN AFRICAN AMERICAN TONE , COOL AND TO THE POINT TO T SOUTHERN ACCENT OF A MAN THAT SOUNDS TO BE OVER WEIGHT. IT WAS VERY CLEAR , THE PERSON ON THE OPPOSITE END OF THE LINE WAS NOT THE PERSON I CALLED. I HAVE LEARNED THAT IN MY LOAN BY AN EMPLOYEE THAT I BELEIVE TO BE A METLIFE ASSOCIATE STATED ” YOUR LOAN WA TAKEN OUT IN 2009″ WHEN I ASKED IF HE COULD SEND ME THESE DOCUMENTS , HE STATED OH NO I WAS LOOKING AT ANOTHER LOAN. MY LOAN WAS SOLD TO A THF INVESTOR IN 2009, IFOUND THE SALE ONLINE, OF COURSE IN THE PROCESS OF REPROTING THIS CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR THE HOME WA BROKEN INTO WITH ANY DOCUMENTS PERTAINING TO THE HOME STOLEN.
    I HAVE THE ORIGINAL DEED OF TRUST TO THE HOME. WHICH IS WHY I KNOW MELTLIFE AKA MERS DO NOT HAVE THE NOTE OR THE DEED. IN MY MOTION I REQUESTED THAT MILLSAP AND SINGER PRODUCE THE ORIGINAL WET INK OF THE DOCUEMENTS. THE JUDGE WENT WITH SHE BELEIVES THERE IS A LOAN AND THAT MILLSAP AND SINGER HAS THE AUTHORITY TO FORECLOSE.
    I ACTUALLY FILE MOTION TO APPEAL. DENIED . PROVIDING MILLSAP AND SINGER THE AUTHORITY TO FORECLOSE,. I HAVE A REVIEW COMING UP
    SOMEONE PLEASE TELL ME ALTHOUGH I HAVE A REVIEW OF THE BAPS. I SINCE HAVE SEEN THE SAME VEHICLE WITH ILLINIOS PLATES ” BAPS 1″ WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON IN STLOUIS ?

  6. to Eric Mesi:

    Sec 2-(b) of your abstract of MERS is interesting. They seem to contemplate a situation where the party doing the foreclosing is not in possession of the Note. Somebody else is. So they counsel: “do not plead possession of the note”. And how is the foreclosor supposed to have the legal authority to do a foreclosure if it is not in possession of the Note? To be a “Holder” is the first step – and to be a Holder requires that the party have both physical possession of the Note and the authority to enforce the Note.

    What that “manual” shows is that MERS is a smug outfit that has set itself up with disdain for homeowners and a disregard of Statute.

  7. MERs has a manual and I included some of it below regarding foreclosures. But who would know if their manual is correct? Of course they will write it to protect their selves.
    Section 2: (a) If a Member chooses to conduct foreclosures in the
    name of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., the note must be endorsed in blank and
    in possession of one of the Member’s MERS certifying officers. If the investor so allows, then
    MERS can be designated as the note-holder.
    —————————————————————————–
    Section 1. MERS shall within two (2) business days forward to the appropriate
    Member or Members, in the form prescribed by and otherwise in accordance with the
    Procedures, all properly identified notices, payments, and other correspondence received by
    MERS with respect to mortgage loans registered on the MERS® System for which Mortgage
    Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. serves as mortgagee of record.
    —————————————————————————–
    Section 2. MERS shall provide to Members certain standard reports concerning
    information contained on the MERS® System, as specified in the Procedures, and such other
    reports as MERS may determine from time to time.
    —————————————————————————–
    (b) In non-judicial foreclosure states, if the Member chooses to foreclose
    in MERS name under the power of sale provision in the security instrument and is not seeking a
    deficiency judgment, then the note does not need to be in the possession of the Member’s MERS
    Certifying Officer when commencing the foreclosure action; provided, however, that under no
    circumstances may the Member allege that the note is in their possession unless it so possesses.

  8. Editor,
    Does this not show a clear picture into what happened to the note?
    I have made several posts here concerning the note, the securities and MERS. what is your take on the evidence I can produce. I think in my opinion I have enough legit documents(not copies) to collaspse a certificate series. I can not only alledge fraud but can prove it. I can show emails from the FDIC, senators, the federal reserve board, attorney generals etc.. Who do not get it , do not care or in my opinion are involved in a massive coverup. I would never agree to a remodification because that gives the banks an escape goat. Not saying some banks may have the original documents but the ones that don’t get forgiven again and reestablish the note and mortgage.

  9. to tony brown:

    Answer: it is far too complicated to reporters.

    Also, reporters cannot explain it to their viewers, so what is the point in reporting it?

    And the bottom-feeders love that state of affairs.

  10. I would like to know why the information I have is not of interest to the media? Why is everyone looking over the point that I can collaspe a certificate series. I have the proof, they lied to investors and if my loan was packaged and sold without having the proper paper work, ownership … so was others! I get what everyone is trying to do here but I don’t think any of the banks produce or can produce the wet ink note.. I have more on this and i will post more later.

  11. Here’s the counter-argument to Dave Kreiger’s line of reasoning. Suppose a share of stock is owned by Aunt Millie, and she gives it as a birthday gift to her favorite niece, “for no consideration.” So: is the transfer contractually valid?

    I actually had this argument tossed in my face by a Federal Judge so it is not as if this is not the thinking on at least some Benches.

    Note that, in Kentucky, by State Statute a mortgage cannot be foreclosed on for more than the value of the last transfer of record. So: if it was sold for ten dollars, then that is all the next man can collect. And if it was sold and no consideration was recorded, then the value goes to zero. But this is a situation limited to State Law, and I do not know the status of other States. However, still worthwhile to check out.

    My counter to the Court was that a transfer between corporations was not quite the same as a gift from an aunt to a niece; the Court was not seemingly persuaded (butdid not rule). I think Dave is right that you can argue that corporations are not in the business of making gifts to each other of Notes.

    Dave argues that because MERS has no authority to foreclose, then nobody else further down the chain will either. Yet that is not clear. A person is a “Holder” of a note if that person has physical possession of the note and authority to enforce it. {Assume Possession]. “Authority to enforce” flows from the assignee having paid for the Note. Did the new party pay any money to someone else – the party ahead of MERS as nominee?

    If MERS is structured as a transfer agent, then handing the Note to a transfer agent to do a transfer should not obliterate the right to enforce.

    Does anyone have case law on these points? I am merely setting forth suggestions, and not implying that any line of argument is either valid or invalid. Case Law will certainly help. {Either way, sure is a mess}.

  12. It appears there should be a suit to remove cloud filed;
    especially if you have paperwork showing the mortgage loan satisfied.

    From my research, any note MERS touches becomes unenforceable because the assignments that were drafted, whether or not in trust, were more than likely NOT contractually valid as there was no consideration paid. From previous posts on this blog, MERS has already admitted it’s not a “mortgagee”, since it holds no beneficial interest. It has no authority to foreclose. Consquently, no other entity following it does either.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,375 other followers

%d bloggers like this: